This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns allegations of sexual molestation by a priest, who was assigned to a parish in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, between 1966 and 1968. The priest had been previously suspended by the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut, for inappropriate conduct and sent to a treatment center in New Mexico. The Diocese paid for his treatment and later dismissed him, but the priest returned to New Mexico and was assigned to a parish by the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, where the alleged abuse occurred (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- Tercero v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 1999-NMCA-052, 127 N.M. 294, 980 P.2d 77: The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the claims against the Diocese of Norwich, holding that the district court had long-arm jurisdiction over the Diocese (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Respondent: Argued that the Diocese of Norwich transacted business in New Mexico and committed tortious acts by failing to supervise the priest, failing to warn parishioners, and using the treatment center as its agent to facilitate the priest's placement in New Mexico (paras 11, 20-21, 26).
- Defendant-Petitioner (Diocese of Norwich): Contended that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to establish personal jurisdiction, as its involvement with the priest ended when it dismissed him and ceased to control his actions (paras 6, 16-17).
Legal Issues
- Did the Diocese of Norwich transact business in New Mexico sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute?
- Did the Diocese of Norwich commit a tortious act in New Mexico by failing to supervise the priest or warn parishioners?
- Were the Diocese's contacts with New Mexico sufficient to satisfy constitutional due process requirements for personal jurisdiction?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Diocese of Norwich (para 28).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Maes J., with Serna C.J. and Franchini J. concurring):
The Court found that the Diocese of Norwich did not have sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. While the Diocese initially sent the priest to New Mexico for treatment and paid for his expenses, it dismissed him in 1964 and ceased to control his actions. The alleged abuse occurred years later, during the priest's employment with the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, which was responsible for his supervision. The Court concluded that the Diocese's limited and attenuated contacts with New Mexico did not meet the constitutional standard of "fair play and substantial justice" required for personal jurisdiction (paras 6-19, 28).
Dissenting Opinion (Per Minzner J., with Baca J. concurring):
The dissent argued that the Diocese's actions, including sending the priest to New Mexico, paying for his treatment, and encouraging him to seek employment through the treatment center, constituted sufficient minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction. The dissent emphasized that the Diocese maintained an ongoing relationship with the priest under canon law and could reasonably foresee being haled into court in New Mexico. The dissent also highlighted the Diocese's failure to warn parishioners or adequately supervise the priest as a basis for jurisdiction (paras 30-43).